Illinois’ runaway pension system is placing the state’s fiscal health in jeopardy. State contributions to the pension system have already crowded out payments to social service providers. But less focus has been placed on current state workers and teachers, particularly those with retirements more than a decade away. Their outlook is very much at risk, which is why their unions’ opposition to pension reform is contrary to their interests.

Illinois’ pension system is hopelessly insolvent with about $60 billion of assets and $200 billion in “legacy” liabilities (using an appropriate discount rate). Illinois state workers and teachers currently have roughly 9 percent of each paycheck withheld and sent to the pension black hole. The premise is that the funds will be held by the pension system, invested responsibly, and used to make payments to the workers upon retirement. Unfortunately, pension officials are using those contributions from current workers to pay current retirees.

And it gets worse. With respect to the tens of billions of state contributions to the pension system, the pension sieve pays those funds out as fast as they arrive. Pension officials are also liquidating the $60 billion current pension investment portfolio, also to pay current retirees. In the May issue of National Tax Journal, nationally recognized pension expert Professor Joshua Rauh of Northwestern estimates that by 2018, all pension assets will have been liquidated! The cupboard will be bare.

How is this the union's fault? The article says that the government officials are the ones acting irresponsibly. A huge part of NJ's pension crisis is due to the last few governors giving tax cuts rather than pay the state's portion of the pension bill. Perhaps the unions should sue the state government and the former governors for their egregious financial mismanagement.

Christian73 saidHow is this the union's fault? The article says that the government officials are the ones acting irresponsibly. A huge part of NJ's pension crisis is due to the last few governors giving tax cuts rather than pay the state's portion of the pension bill. Perhaps the unions should sue the state government and the former governors for their egregious financial mismanagement.

Perhaps - but one could equally make the argument that the pensions are overly generous and politically unsustainable negotiated with governments who knew they would not need to pay the costs for them. I personally agree - the unions should sue - then we can see how willing politically popular it will be for these pensions to be funded.

Christian73 saidHow is this the union's fault? The article says that the government officials are the ones acting irresponsibly. A huge part of NJ's pension crisis is due to the last few governors giving tax cuts rather than pay the state's portion of the pension bill. Perhaps the unions should sue the state government and the former governors for their egregious financial mismanagement.

Perhaps - but one could equally make the argument that the pensions are overly generous and politically unsustainable negotiated with governments who knew they would not need to pay the costs for them. I personally agree - the unions should sue - then we can see how willing politically popular it will be for these pensions to be funded.

They would not have been "overly generous" had they been funded. That you've made this about unions when the real issue is politicians not being honest or doing their fiduciary duty shows how craven you are in your quest to bash unions. Sad, really.

Christian73 saidHow is this the union's fault? The article says that the government officials are the ones acting irresponsibly. A huge part of NJ's pension crisis is due to the last few governors giving tax cuts rather than pay the state's portion of the pension bill. Perhaps the unions should sue the state government and the former governors for their egregious financial mismanagement.

Perhaps - but one could equally make the argument that the pensions are overly generous and politically unsustainable negotiated with governments who knew they would not need to pay the costs for them. I personally agree - the unions should sue - then we can see how willing politically popular it will be for these pensions to be funded.

They would not have been "overly generous" had they been funded. That you've made this about unions when the real issue is politicians not being honest or doing their fiduciary duty shows how craven you are in your quest to bash unions. Sad, really.

Ah - are you saying then that defined benefit pensions are common in the private sector? And that the benefits that unions receive are consistent with the private sector?

Christian73 saidHow is this the union's fault? The article says that the government officials are the ones acting irresponsibly. A huge part of NJ's pension crisis is due to the last few governors giving tax cuts rather than pay the state's portion of the pension bill. Perhaps the unions should sue the state government and the former governors for their egregious financial mismanagement.

Perhaps - but one could equally make the argument that the pensions are overly generous and politically unsustainable negotiated with governments who knew they would not need to pay the costs for them. I personally agree - the unions should sue - then we can see how willing politically popular it will be for these pensions to be funded.

They would not have been "overly generous" had they been funded. That you've made this about unions when the real issue is politicians not being honest or doing their fiduciary duty shows how craven you are in your quest to bash unions. Sad, really.

Ah - are you saying then that defined benefit pensions are common in the private sector? And that the benefits that unions receive are consistent with the private sector?

The private sector long ago lost its leadership position in taking care of its long-term employees. Most industries put the greed of executives and shareholders, particularly those with a heavy concentration of public companies, ahead of the common good. And most have all but demolished their retirement benefits. This is an egregious violation of the social contract that maintained a capitalist democracy in the US. As such, the private sector can no longer be the barometer of ethical business behavior, or the long term interests of our country. Perhaps there was a time when what was good for General Motors was good for the country, but that time is long passed.

I would stipulate that a population that lives so much longer than we used to requires a restructuring and reinterpretation of retirement and the responsibility for private firms, individual and the government to provide for the country's elderly. Unfortunately, the money in politics prevents a rationale discussion and problem-solving; leaving only ideologues and those driven by greed to fill the vacuum with fear-mongering and hysteria.

Like many of our country's problems, this is solvable, but not as long as our politicians are beholden to various special interests.

If I ran the Left in this country, I would suspend all non-critical (e.g. life and death) work by all advocacy groups and focus solely on passing full public financing of elections, and some window whereby those in public service cannot be employed by those they regulate for a significant period of time (5-10 years). Then we could go about the business of our Republic. Everything else is a band-aid on an increasingly gaping wound.

Christian73 saidHow is this the union's fault? The article says that the government officials are the ones acting irresponsibly. A huge part of NJ's pension crisis is due to the last few governors giving tax cuts rather than pay the state's portion of the pension bill. Perhaps the unions should sue the state government and the former governors for their egregious financial mismanagement.

Perhaps - but one could equally make the argument that the pensions are overly generous and politically unsustainable negotiated with governments who knew they would not need to pay the costs for them. I personally agree - the unions should sue - then we can see how willing politically popular it will be for these pensions to be funded.

They would not have been "overly generous" had they been funded. That you've made this about unions when the real issue is politicians not being honest or doing their fiduciary duty shows how craven you are in your quest to bash unions. Sad, really.

Ah - are you saying then that defined benefit pensions are common in the private sector? And that the benefits that unions receive are consistent with the private sector?

The private sector long ago lost its leadership position in taking care of its long-term employees. Most industries put the greed of executives and shareholders, particularly those with a heavy concentration of public companies, ahead of the common good. And most have all but demolished their retirement benefits. This is an egregious violation of the social contract that maintained a capitalist democracy in the US. As such, the private sector can no longer be the barometer of ethical business behavior, or the long term interests of our country. Perhaps there was a time when what was good for General Motors was good for the country, but that time is long passed.

I would stipulate that a population that lives so much longer than we used to requires a restructuring and reinterpretation of retirement and the responsibility for private firms, individual and the government to provide for the country's elderly. Unfortunately, the money in politics prevents a rationale discussion and problem-solving; leaving only ideologues and those driven by greed to fill the vacuum with fear-mongering and hysteria.

Like many of our country's problems, this is solvable, but not as long as our politicians are beholden to various special interests.

If I ran the Left in this country, I would suspend all non-critical (e.g. life and death) work by all advocacy groups and focus solely on passing full public financing of elections, and some window whereby those in public service cannot be employed by those they regulate for a significant period of time (5-10 years). Then we could go about the business of our Republic. Everything else is a band-aid on an increasingly gaping wound.

Ah so bottomline, the answer is no - unions have significantly better benefits than the private sector. Then I agree with you - the unions should sue - and see where the sympathies of the public lie. What's truly remarkable is that what you don't see is that those special interests that you speak of include unions.

riddler78 saidAh so bottomline, the answer is no - unions have significantly better benefits than the private sector. Then I agree with you - the unions should sue - and see where the sympathies of the public lie. What's truly remarkable is that what you don't see is that those special interests that you speak of include unions.

No. The bottom line is that the union benefits have stayed largely the same over the past 40-50 years. What's changed is that private sector companies no longer provide for their long-term employees retirement. So, the truth is that the private sector offers significantly worse benefits than those of government union workers. Why are those benefits better? Because of unions.

And, sure, unions are "special interests", if you consider having basic necessities such as healthcare, sick days, leisure time, safe workplace "special."

riddler78 saidAh so bottomline, the answer is no - unions have significantly better benefits than the private sector. Then I agree with you - the unions should sue - and see where the sympathies of the public lie. What's truly remarkable is that what you don't see is that those special interests that you speak of include unions.

No. The bottom line is that the union benefits have stayed largely the same over the past 40-50 years. What's changed is that private sector companies no longer provide for their long-term employees retirement. So, the truth is that the private sector offers significantly worse benefits than those of government union workers. Why are those benefits better? Because of unions.

And, sure, unions are "special interests", if you consider having basic necessities such as healthcare, sick days, leisure time, safe workplace "special."

Yep - the benefits that union members get are only the basic necessities. Good luck pushing that

riddler78 saidAh so bottomline, the answer is no - unions have significantly better benefits than the private sector. Then I agree with you - the unions should sue - and see where the sympathies of the public lie. What's truly remarkable is that what you don't see is that those special interests that you speak of include unions.

No. The bottom line is that the union benefits have stayed largely the same over the past 40-50 years. What's changed is that private sector companies no longer provide for their long-term employees retirement. So, the truth is that the private sector offers significantly worse benefits than those of government union workers. Why are those benefits better? Because of unions.

And, sure, unions are "special interests", if you consider having basic necessities such as healthcare, sick days, leisure time, safe workplace "special."

Yep - the benefits that union members get are only the basic necessities. Good luck pushing that

It's becoming really clear that you don't have an actual argument here, just a desparate need to find fault with unions.

riddler78 saidAh so bottomline, the answer is no - unions have significantly better benefits than the private sector. Then I agree with you - the unions should sue - and see where the sympathies of the public lie. What's truly remarkable is that what you don't see is that those special interests that you speak of include unions.

No. The bottom line is that the union benefits have stayed largely the same over the past 40-50 years. What's changed is that private sector companies no longer provide for their long-term employees retirement. So, the truth is that the private sector offers significantly worse benefits than those of government union workers. Why are those benefits better? Because of unions.

And, sure, unions are "special interests", if you consider having basic necessities such as healthcare, sick days, leisure time, safe workplace "special."

Yep - the benefits that union members get are only the basic necessities. Good luck pushing that

It's becoming really clear that you don't have an actual argument here, just a desparate need to find fault with unions.

It's not becoming obvious - it is obvious that you seem to be grasping at straws attempting to defend unions who to you can do no wrong despite fiscal realities and the reality that unions receive substantially better benefits than the public at large and the private sector.

riddler78 saidAh so bottomline, the answer is no - unions have significantly better benefits than the private sector. Then I agree with you - the unions should sue - and see where the sympathies of the public lie. What's truly remarkable is that what you don't see is that those special interests that you speak of include unions.

No. The bottom line is that the union benefits have stayed largely the same over the past 40-50 years. What's changed is that private sector companies no longer provide for their long-term employees retirement. So, the truth is that the private sector offers significantly worse benefits than those of government union workers. Why are those benefits better? Because of unions.

And, sure, unions are "special interests", if you consider having basic necessities such as healthcare, sick days, leisure time, safe workplace "special."

Yep - the benefits that union members get are only the basic necessities. Good luck pushing that

It's becoming really clear that you don't have an actual argument here, just a desparate need to find fault with unions.

It's not becoming obvious - it is obvious that you seem to be grasping at straws attempting to defend unions who to you can do no wrong despite fiscal realities and the reality that unions receive substantially better benefits than the public at large and the private sector.

Incorrect. Again, the issue is not the "unions receiving substantially better benefits than the...private sector." Rahter, the question all Americans should be asking is why have private companies stopped providing for their employees. And, the answer to both that, and the so-called "fiscal realities" (really, deregulation and tax cuts that were unaffordable), is greed.

riddler78 saidAh so bottomline, the answer is no - unions have significantly better benefits than the private sector. Then I agree with you - the unions should sue - and see where the sympathies of the public lie. What's truly remarkable is that what you don't see is that those special interests that you speak of include unions.

No. The bottom line is that the union benefits have stayed largely the same over the past 40-50 years. What's changed is that private sector companies no longer provide for their long-term employees retirement. So, the truth is that the private sector offers significantly worse benefits than those of government union workers. Why are those benefits better? Because of unions.

And, sure, unions are "special interests", if you consider having basic necessities such as healthcare, sick days, leisure time, safe workplace "special."

Yep - the benefits that union members get are only the basic necessities. Good luck pushing that

It's becoming really clear that you don't have an actual argument here, just a desparate need to find fault with unions.

It's not becoming obvious - it is obvious that you seem to be grasping at straws attempting to defend unions who to you can do no wrong despite fiscal realities and the reality that unions receive substantially better benefits than the public at large and the private sector.

Incorrect. Again, the issue is not the "unions receiving substantially better benefits than the...private sector." Rahter, the question all Americans should be asking is why have private companies stopped providing for their employees. And, the answer to both that, and the so-called "fiscal realities" (really, deregulation and tax cuts that were unaffordable), is greed.

Wrong again. You seem to have this absurd dystopian view of the world of entitlements that governments and corporations owe you or unions any number of benefits despite the fact over time things have improved substantially - not because of unions but rather in spite of them. Again, it's sort of amusing watching you flail about attempting to make the argument that benefits unions receive are not excessive. Best of luck with that

riddler78 saidWrong again. You seem to have this absurd dystopian view of the world of entitlements that governments and corporations owe their you or unions any number of benefits despite the fact over time things have improved substantially - not because of unions but rather in spite of them. Again, it's sort of amusing watching you flail about attempting to make the argument that benefits unions receive are not excessive. Best of luck with that

"Dystopian" view? That may well be the most nonsensical thing you've ever written. Perhaps in your native Canada things have "improved substantially" but given that the US now has the 4th greatest income inequality in the world, that's not the case here.

Inflation-adjusted income has stagnated for 40 years, healthcare costs have increased while benefits have decreased. Americans receive very little paid time off, and can rarely take the time off they do receive. In fact, a recent news items said not taking vacation is costing Americans billions of dollars in compensation. This is consistent the the decrease in private sector unionization, so your correlation is both ridiculous and uninformed.

I understand that you're an ideologue clinging to economic theories proven utterly false in every country (including the US) where they've been implemented. Feel free to try and prove your ludicrous assertions. Otherwise, we'll assume that you have no evidence for your claims.

riddler78 saidWrong again. You seem to have this absurd dystopian view of the world of entitlements that governments and corporations owe their you or unions any number of benefits despite the fact over time things have improved substantially - not because of unions but rather in spite of them. Again, it's sort of amusing watching you flail about attempting to make the argument that benefits unions receive are not excessive. Best of luck with that

"Dystopian" view? That may well be the most nonsensical thing you've ever written. Perhaps in your native Canada things have "improved substantially" but given that the US now has the 4th greatest income inequality in the world, that's not the case here.

Inflation-adjusted income has stagnated for 40 years, healthcare costs have increased while benefits have decreased. Americans receive very little paid time off, and can rarely take the time off they do receive. In fact, a recent news items said not taking vacation is costing Americans billions of dollars in compensation. This is consistent the the decrease in private sector unionization, so your correlation is both ridiculous and uninformed.

I understand that you're an ideologue clinging to economic theories proven utterly false in every country (including the US) where they've been implemented. Feel free to try and prove your ludicrous assertions. Otherwise, we'll assume that you have no evidence for your claims.

You do realize of course that just because you repeat something over and over again, it doesn't make it true. The statistics on improving standard of living and per capita GDP growth are clear - especially over the last forty years. Again that pesky "we" - a true mark of a weak argument when you feel you have to the supposed agreement of others to drown out another.

Your flailing and supposed "reality" are actually quite funny. You're right of course, private sector unions are dying out - but you could also say that's a cause of improving working place standards and the emergence of world class companies. Can you even imagine the workforce at Microsoft or Google being unionized? Lol. As noted, best of luck pissing into the wind.

riddler78 saidWrong again. You seem to have this absurd dystopian view of the world of entitlements that governments and corporations owe their you or unions any number of benefits despite the fact over time things have improved substantially - not because of unions but rather in spite of them. Again, it's sort of amusing watching you flail about attempting to make the argument that benefits unions receive are not excessive. Best of luck with that

"Dystopian" view? That may well be the most nonsensical thing you've ever written. Perhaps in your native Canada things have "improved substantially" but given that the US now has the 4th greatest income inequality in the world, that's not the case here.

Inflation-adjusted income has stagnated for 40 years, healthcare costs have increased while benefits have decreased. Americans receive very little paid time off, and can rarely take the time off they do receive. In fact, a recent news items said not taking vacation is costing Americans billions of dollars in compensation. This is consistent the the decrease in private sector unionization, so your correlation is both ridiculous and uninformed.

I understand that you're an ideologue clinging to economic theories proven utterly false in every country (including the US) where they've been implemented. Feel free to try and prove your ludicrous assertions. Otherwise, we'll assume that you have no evidence for your claims.

You do realize of course that just because you repeat something over and over again, it doesn't make it true. The statistics on improving standard of living and per capita GDP growth are clear - especially over the last forty years. Again that pesky "we" - a true mark of a weak argument when you feel you have to the supposed agreement of others to drown out another.

Your flailing and supposed "reality" are actually quite funny. You're right of course, private sector unions are dying out - but you could also say that's a cause of improving working place standards and the emergence of world class companies. Can you even imagine the workforce at Microsoft or Google being unionized? Lol. As noted, best of luck pissing into the wind.

Given that you just continue to post platitudes with no substantiation in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and opinion polls that most Americans believe things are far worse than they used to be, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Best of luck to you when the crowds with pitchforks and torches come for you.

riddler78 saidWrong again. You seem to have this absurd dystopian view of the world of entitlements that governments and corporations owe their you or unions any number of benefits despite the fact over time things have improved substantially - not because of unions but rather in spite of them. Again, it's sort of amusing watching you flail about attempting to make the argument that benefits unions receive are not excessive. Best of luck with that

"Dystopian" view? That may well be the most nonsensical thing you've ever written. Perhaps in your native Canada things have "improved substantially" but given that the US now has the 4th greatest income inequality in the world, that's not the case here.

Inflation-adjusted income has stagnated for 40 years, healthcare costs have increased while benefits have decreased. Americans receive very little paid time off, and can rarely take the time off they do receive. In fact, a recent news items said not taking vacation is costing Americans billions of dollars in compensation. This is consistent the the decrease in private sector unionization, so your correlation is both ridiculous and uninformed.

I understand that you're an ideologue clinging to economic theories proven utterly false in every country (including the US) where they've been implemented. Feel free to try and prove your ludicrous assertions. Otherwise, we'll assume that you have no evidence for your claims.

You do realize of course that just because you repeat something over and over again, it doesn't make it true. The statistics on improving standard of living and per capita GDP growth are clear - especially over the last forty years. Again that pesky "we" - a true mark of a weak argument when you feel you have to the supposed agreement of others to drown out another.

Your flailing and supposed "reality" are actually quite funny. You're right of course, private sector unions are dying out - but you could also say that's a cause of improving working place standards and the emergence of world class companies. Can you even imagine the workforce at Microsoft or Google being unionized? Lol. As noted, best of luck pissing into the wind.

Given that you just continue to post platitudes with no substantiation in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and opinion polls that most Americans believe things are far worse than they used to be, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Best of luck to you when the crowds with pitchforks and torches come for you.

I can understand how simple facts like increasing per capita GDP and standard of living might elude you - and as noted in my previous response. But like I've said - just because you choose to repeat fiction does not make it true. In the US, the people with the pitchforks tend to be the taxpayers and not the parasites who feed on them. Your might wish to heed your own warning - so um best of luck with that.

Ignorant union busters always act as if unions were dictatorships, when, in reality, every single word and every single piece of punctuation in a union contract is AGREED TO by management.

Traditionally anti union Republicans are trying to make unions and union members the scape goats for our economic problems, when the real problem is high unemployment. Before the Wall Street melt down, nobody said a word about union member pensions.

Now, all of a sudden, Republicans are on the war path against teachers, cops, and firemen. And, as we've seen in Wisconsin and other places, the voters are outraged, orchestrating recall elections for many of these same Republicans.

Unions equal safe working conditions, health benefits, an 8 hour work day, a 40 hour work week, and a cost of living wage, and in some cases, a retirement pension, as a reward for an employees many years of dedicated service. You can't fault pensions while, at the same time, defending obscene bonuses for executives.

riddler78 saidI can understand how simple facts like increasing per capita GDP and standard of living might elude you - and as noted in my previous response. But like I've said - just because you choose to repeat fiction does not make it true. In the US, the people with the pitchforks tend to be the taxpayers and not the parasites who feed on them. Your might wish to heed your own warning - so um best of luck with that.

Increasing per capita GDP doesn't mean anything when it's being siphoned off the top by a few companies. And in some ways, mostly consumerist ways, standard of living has gone up but only due to technological innovation, which has obscured the economic injustice.

riddler78 saidI can understand how simple facts like increasing per capita GDP and standard of living might elude you - and as noted in my previous response. But like I've said - just because you choose to repeat fiction does not make it true. In the US, the people with the pitchforks tend to be the taxpayers and not the parasites who feed on them. Your might wish to heed your own warning - so um best of luck with that.

Increasing per capita GDP doesn't mean anything when it's being siphoned off the top by a few companies. And in some ways, mostly consumerist ways, standard of living has gone up but only due to technological innovation, which has obscured the economic injustice.

Yep cuz technology is sort of just like manna from the sky and is purely serendipitous as opposed to driven by economic incentives , It must get frustrating for you to keep pissing in the wind. Especially since there have been fundamental improvements to the living standards of practically everyone driven by markets and - gasp - corporations (many who are no longer around - such is effect of creative destruction), and higher incomes overall.

riddler78 saidI can understand how simple facts like increasing per capita GDP and standard of living might elude you - and as noted in my previous response. But like I've said - just because you choose to repeat fiction does not make it true. In the US, the people with the pitchforks tend to be the taxpayers and not the parasites who feed on them. Your might wish to heed your own warning - so um best of luck with that.

Increasing per capita GDP doesn't mean anything when it's being siphoned off the top by a few companies. And in some ways, mostly consumerist ways, standard of living has gone up but only due to technological innovation, which has obscured the economic injustice.

Yep cuz technology is sort of just like manna from the sky and is purely serendipitous as opposed to driven by economic incentives , It must get frustrating for you to keep pissing in the wind. Especially since there have been fundamental improvements to the living standards of practically everyone driven by markets and - gasp - corporations (many who are no longer around - such is effect of creative destruction), and higher incomes overall.

I can't imagine how it is for you to be SO driven by ideology. There are Catholic saints with more objectivity than you have.

Given that much of what led to the technology evolution of the last 20-30 years came from government sponsored programs, you're "market" bias is even more fraudulent that usual.

riddler78 saidI can understand how simple facts like increasing per capita GDP and standard of living might elude you - and as noted in my previous response. But like I've said - just because you choose to repeat fiction does not make it true. In the US, the people with the pitchforks tend to be the taxpayers and not the parasites who feed on them. Your might wish to heed your own warning - so um best of luck with that.

Increasing per capita GDP doesn't mean anything when it's being siphoned off the top by a few companies. And in some ways, mostly consumerist ways, standard of living has gone up but only due to technological innovation, which has obscured the economic injustice.

Yep cuz technology is sort of just like manna from the sky and is purely serendipitous as opposed to driven by economic incentives , It must get frustrating for you to keep pissing in the wind. Especially since there have been fundamental improvements to the living standards of practically everyone driven by markets and - gasp - corporations (many who are no longer around - such is effect of creative destruction), and higher incomes overall.

I can't imagine how it is for you to be SO driven by ideology. There are Catholic saints with more objectivity than you have.

Given that much of what led to the technology evolution of the last 20-30 years came from government sponsored programs, you're "market" bias is even more fraudulent that usual.

Yes, I am driven by ideas that I find interesting - though I can't speak to the objectivity of Catholic saints, what is clear is how amusingly partisan you've become. The internet and technologies in some cases initially created or augmented by governments occurred because governments reduced control, licensed and/or just released them into the market. You are an anachronism clinging to dying ideas that are being marginalized following their very implementation. The problem is that there are increasingly fewer people who are convinced of the ideas that you continue to push given how absolutely useless they've become.

That said, given your desperate struggle for relevance I suppose you deserve my pity more than my amusement

riddler78 saidI can understand how simple facts like increasing per capita GDP and standard of living might elude you - and as noted in my previous response. But like I've said - just because you choose to repeat fiction does not make it true. In the US, the people with the pitchforks tend to be the taxpayers and not the parasites who feed on them. Your might wish to heed your own warning - so um best of luck with that.

Increasing per capita GDP doesn't mean anything when it's being siphoned off the top by a few companies. And in some ways, mostly consumerist ways, standard of living has gone up but only due to technological innovation, which has obscured the economic injustice.

Yep cuz technology is sort of just like manna from the sky and is purely serendipitous as opposed to driven by economic incentives , It must get frustrating for you to keep pissing in the wind. Especially since there have been fundamental improvements to the living standards of practically everyone driven by markets and - gasp - corporations (many who are no longer around - such is effect of creative destruction), and higher incomes overall.

I can't imagine how it is for you to be SO driven by ideology. There are Catholic saints with more objectivity than you have.

Given that much of what led to the technology evolution of the last 20-30 years came from government sponsored programs, you're "market" bias is even more fraudulent that usual.

Yes, I am driven by ideas that I find interesting - though I can't speak to the objectivity of Catholic saints, what is clear is how amusingly partisan you've become. The internet and technologies in some cases initially created or augmented by governments occurred because governments reduced control. You are an anachronism clinging to dying ideas that are being marginalized following their very implementation. The problem is that there are increasingly fewer people who are convinced of the ideas that you continue to push given how absolutely useless they've become.

That said, given your desperate struggle for relevance I suppose you deserve my pity more than my amusement

Do you understand history? What you claim in terms of the relaxation of government control is ridiculous and completely illogical. If the government hadn't funded the initial technologies there's nothing left to relax control over. I thought you were a businessperson.

riddler78 saidI can understand how simple facts like increasing per capita GDP and standard of living might elude you - and as noted in my previous response. But like I've said - just because you choose to repeat fiction does not make it true. In the US, the people with the pitchforks tend to be the taxpayers and not the parasites who feed on them. Your might wish to heed your own warning - so um best of luck with that.

Increasing per capita GDP doesn't mean anything when it's being siphoned off the top by a few companies. And in some ways, mostly consumerist ways, standard of living has gone up but only due to technological innovation, which has obscured the economic injustice.

Yep cuz technology is sort of just like manna from the sky and is purely serendipitous as opposed to driven by economic incentives , It must get frustrating for you to keep pissing in the wind. Especially since there have been fundamental improvements to the living standards of practically everyone driven by markets and - gasp - corporations (many who are no longer around - such is effect of creative destruction), and higher incomes overall.

I can't imagine how it is for you to be SO driven by ideology. There are Catholic saints with more objectivity than you have.

Given that much of what led to the technology evolution of the last 20-30 years came from government sponsored programs, you're "market" bias is even more fraudulent that usual.

Yes, I am driven by ideas that I find interesting - though I can't speak to the objectivity of Catholic saints, what is clear is how amusingly partisan you've become. The internet and technologies in some cases initially created or augmented by governments occurred because governments reduced control. You are an anachronism clinging to dying ideas that are being marginalized following their very implementation. The problem is that there are increasingly fewer people who are convinced of the ideas that you continue to push given how absolutely useless they've become.

That said, given your desperate struggle for relevance I suppose you deserve my pity more than my amusement

Do you understand history? What you claim in terms of the relaxation of government control is ridiculous and completely illogical. If the government hadn't funded the initial technologies there's nothing left to relax control over. I thought you were a businessperson.